Knob Award #2: Fletcher takes MPI to court - yet again

The money he gets, is the money that is available under the insurance we have. Thats all there is to it.

Are you going to post the text?

apparently its a rather new virus accord to symantecs website.

A closer look at how MPI deals with young accident victims

by Steven Fletcher 

Over the past couple of months, Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) has received much publicity. It has enjoyed a $100-million surplus this year, largely due to investment income and windfall in revenue because of new car sales. 

The question for MPI now is what to do with all this money? MPI and the provincial government decided a one-time rate reduction for motorists and a donation of $20 million to university infrastructure would be a great way to spend the money. This donation to post-secondary educational institutions was met with public outrage. Why should automobile ratepayers subsidize university infrastructure? Many people claimed the extra money should go to the people who pay for the insurance. The government wisely listened to the people and MPI withdrew the donation, instead deciding to increase the ratepayer discount. Though this may have been a wise political decision, in my opinion it was the wrong way to go. 

I believe MPI must focus on the insurance-benefits side of the equation. If there is extra money, it should first go to improve benefits. 

A large number of people who are suffering because of automobile accidents are not getting the insurance benefits they thought they would receive when first buying their insurance. Two of the founding principles of MPI are to restore an individual's quality of life as much as practical to the level it was before the accident and to compensate individuals for economic loss due to the accident. 

I feel MPI fails on both counts. 

Why do I care?

At the age of 23, six months after graduating from engineering, I hit a moose with my car on the highway between Winnipeg and Bissett, a small town three hours northeast of Winnipeg.

The accident left me paralyzed from the neck down - a high-level quadriplegic (C4). The injury has left me with medical, social, psychological and financial issues I still have trouble comprehending. 

Since I could not come close to articulating the medical, social or psychological issues, for the purpose of this article I will focus on the financial implications of my accident. 

MPI claims to compensate individuals for economic loss due to a car accident, yet this did not happen. Just about anyone involved in an accident is not compensated appropriately. This is particularly true if the accident is catastrophic in nature (i.e., spinal cord injury, brain injury) and if the victim is a young person. 

A young person in a catastrophic accident sees a double-whammy effect, of which I know firsthand. 

My belief is that everyone should be concerned about this, since it can happen to anyone. Many who read this article may have their lives affected by MPI legislation. 

Even for a young person in a relatively minor accident, the financial implications can be severe. Here are a few scenarios to illustrate the points. 

Economic Loss of Salary 

Scenario one-A student involved in a car accident that prevents her or him from working will be granted an income replacement based on the average industrial wage in Manitoba, which is approximately $30,000. 

Therefore, a medical student involved in an accident and who is one course away from completion of his or her degree will be deemed to earn $30,000 for the rest of their life. Even though that med student could probably earn a seven-digit salary soon after graduation, it does not matter. 

So, any student in Manitoba, who is involved in a serious car accident and reliant on income replacement will be granted the $30,000, regardless of what they were studying, how close they were to graduation, what their goals were in life, or what they would potentially have earned in the future. 

Scenario two -Say you are a recent university graduate working in an entry-level position earning $25,000 and you get into a car accident. Your salary would be frozen at 90 per cent of the level you were earning at the time of your accident. It doesn't matter that in five years you would have been earning $50,000, $75,000 or more -you will be stuck at $22,500 for the rest of your life. 

Scenario three -You graduate from university and land a $100,000-a-year job, and then get into a car accident. The maximum income replacement is $55,000. If you earn more than $55,000 a year, which is a definite possibility as a university graduate, you will not be compensated for any amount over $55,000.

Lump sum payments

For injuries which can "heal," like broken bones and whiplash, there is no compensation. For permanent types of injuries, there are lump sum payments. However, under the current insurance scheme the lump sum payments are inadequate. 

First, there is no compensation for pain and suffering. Second, body parts are assigned an arbitrary value based on a "meat chart." For example, a finger is worth $3000, a leg is worth $10,000, an eye is worth $25,000 and so on. 

The "meat chart" equalizes the value of different body parts so that in real terms they are worth approximately the same. In other words, while the severity of an injury is exponential, it is compensated on a linear scale. Using MPI logic, the worst types of injuries are worth approximately the same as much less severe injuries. 

The maximum compensation for any type of injury is $100,000. There is a tremendous difference between being a quadriplegic and being a paraplegic, but the compensation is about the same over time (and regardless, both compensation levels are too low). Interestingly, my injury wasn't even on the chart. The differences in quality of life and expenses due to different types of injuries are mind-boggling. If you experience a brain injury, are blinded, lose your hearing and are paralyzed -add any other deformity you would like -the maximum is still $100,000. 

Age is not taken into consideration, either. 

A 19-year-old who experiences an injury is compensated the same as a 99-year-old with the same type of injury. Obviously, the 19-year-old will experience a great deterioration in the quality of life and will incur greater economic loss due to the injury than the 99-year-old. This is particularly true with the more serious injuries. MPI does not recognize the value of youth. I don't think any of this is fair -do you?

Long-term care 

One of the most important issues an individual with a catastrophic injury has to deal with is long-term care. 

Though MPI claims to sustain the quality of life of an individual as much as practical, its long-term policies do not support this claim. A young person involved in an automobile accident is likely to end up in a long-term institutional care facility, like a nursing home. 

After my accident, I faced the prospect of institutional living for the rest of my life. If you are in a similar type of accident, you will have to fight tooth-and-nail to stay in the community. How many young people have had their hopes and dreams evaporate because there is no long-term community living available? 

MPI claims it covers the expenses incurred in automobile accidents. Yet this is not the case. For example, there are very low caps on things like attendant care. If your care needs exceed the $3,000 cap per month -and in catastrophic injuries they surely will -you may be institutionalized, or the provincial government may pick up the difference. (If it does, then taxpayers are subsidizing MPI's obligations.) 

In both scenarios, you end up being stuck in Manitoba because the government portion is not mobile. In essence, if you incur a serious disability because of an automobile accident, you do not have the right, as every other Canadian does, to live anywhere in Canada. 

It can be said that people with severe disabilities are discriminated against under the current MPI legislation. Ironically, MPI legislation was implemented with the intent of improving benefits for people with severe disabilities caused by automobile accidents. However, the legislation does not address issues of individuals with severe disabilities. MPI can help prevent this by providing adequate funding for long-term care.

If you think... 

If you think you can sustain a serious injury and then work to offset the costs of your injury, you are wrong. MPI will call back almost every nickel you earn from your income replacement. It is actually possible to lose financially if you return to work under the current MPI scheme.

If you think the Canadian Pension Plan will save you, you are wrong. MPI calls back the CPP benefits from your income replacement as well, even though CPP is contributed to separately and is a completely independent plan.

If you think you can get private insurance as a young person to help cover the costs, you are probably wrong. Very few young people qualify or can afford insurance to protect themselves from these types of accidents.

If you think you can hire a lawyer to sue MPI, you are wrong. Under the current no-fault system, you cannot sue MPI or anyone else if it is an automobile accident. (Under the previous system, which used tort law, there were many scenarios where suing wouldn't help either. But that's another story.) 

If you think you can appeal decisions made by MPI, it is difficult. To appeal a decision you need a lawyer. Even if you are successful with your appeal (and I have been), you still lose money to lawyer fees, which can be substantial. 

MPI will not reimburse you for lawyer expenses, even if you are successful. To make appeals even more unfair, MPI has several floors full of lawyers in their Eaton Place offices, all of them ready to fight appeals. In essence, your insurance dollars go to lawyers paid to fight against you! You are paying both for your lawyer and for their lawyer. 

There are some very important positive aspects to the MPI coverage. MPI does help with vocational rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation, and medical expenses such as equipment and medication. 

The no-fault system has a tremendous amount of potential, but the substantial problems with MPI coverage need to be fixed. I have been lobbying for changes to MPI legislation and policies since my accident five years ago on January 11, 1996. My experience with MPI is what first drew me into politics. 

Before my accident, I did not give much thought to these types of issues. Yet since my accident, my eyes have been opened wide and I have realized the injustices which go on in our medical system and our insurance coverage.

I am determined to contribute to making MPI and other types of insurance fair and equitable. For years I was told there wasn't enough money. My feelings of disgust resurfaced after the recent announcement by MPI of donations and rate cuts. MPI is not compensating accident victims to the level I believe Manitobans expect. 

MPI policies are also particularly harsh on young people. I never thought my position as UMSU president and my experiences with MPI would intersect, but here we are. This is why, as your student union president, I spoke out against the $20-million donation by MPI to post-secondary institutions. This article has just touched the tip of the iceberg on the MPI issue. 

I believe that if MPI is interested in helping students, it should improve benefits for young people. And if the government is serious about funding university infrastructure, then it should do so itself.

No virus for me...maybe it's just you dean...

you know what I like about the sandbox? The posts can be freakin huge!... thus not making you split a post amongst several posts.

maybe I just have good antivirus protection.

Deank wrote:The money he gets, is the money that is available under the insurance we have. Thats all there is to it.

Yes, and that is the problem. They (Government of Manitoba) need to allow for Private Insurers or fix sec. 131 and 138 of the MPI Act.

Below is from Tom's column in today's Sun.

The two sections of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act in question -- sections 131 and 138 -- are clear that the monthly limit cannot be surpassed, Scott ruled, even though the limit comes nowhere near covering the cost of Fletcher's 24/7 care. But then Scott added something, at the very end of his written ruling. "The difficulty for Fletcher, it seems to me, is not the relationship between Sec. 131 and Sec. 138 of the Act," wrote Scott. "It is rather the fact that the financial limit under Sec. 131 is wholly inadequate to provide the essential level of personal assistance for the victim of an injury such as Mr. Fletcher, who decides to make something out of his life despite his catastrophic physical injuries. But this is a matter for the legislature, not the courts." In other words, Scott is simply interpreting the law as he sees it. He can't change the law. But he does observe that the legislation is "wholly inadequate" for people like Fletcher who decide to pursue ambitious goals rather than biding their time in an institution. Which means all the rhetoric we constantly hear from MPI about how well they take care of accident victims with catastrophic injuries is not always true.

Yes but He was not making that much when the accident took place he was talking then of future earnings, which you and I should not have to pay for as they are guesses as to how much . This is very much a feel sorry for me story . He is entitled to what the plan pays and no more using his position now to bring pressure to bear is cowardly . This man has lost all of my respect sorrow no respect yes . Not to say the plan doe,s not need to be improved but that's another thing.

Pavolo wrote:Yes but He was not making that much when the accident took place he was talking then of future earnings, which you and I should not have to pay for as they are guesses as to how much . This is very much a feel sorry for me story . He is entitled to what the plan pays and no more using his position now to bring pressure to bear is cowardly . This man has lost all of my respect sorrow no respect yes . Not to say the plan doe,s not need to be improved but that's another thing.

Doesn't matter how much he was making when the accident occurred. This accident hindered his ability to make the kind of money he could've had this accident not occurred. I have a friend in a similar situation and he has to do things to supplement what MPI gives him...like I said in an earlier post, my friend became paralyzed in a car accident and he was the ONLY one wearing a seat belt, had he not been wearing it he would be walking right now. Oh and this was the same year the Government made seat belt use mandatory....what a fricken joke. I say get rid of MPIC and have privatized insurance.

Pavolo wrote:Yes but He was not making that much when the accident took place he was talking then of future earnings, which you and I should not have to pay for as they are guesses as to how much . This is very much a feel sorry for me story . He is entitled to what the plan pays and no more using his position now to bring pressure to bear is cowardly . This man has lost all of my respect sorrow no respect yes . Not to say the plan doe,s not need to be improved but that's another thing.

The accident and its damage is permanent and will be with him till he dies, The Government of Manitoba's MPI should be caring for him until the day he dies. Regardless of the fact that he went into politics and got himself elected. Regardless of what job he may have been doing before his accident (which by the way he could no longer perform due to the accident) Imagine the cost to supply him with equipment to allow him to do geological surveying in northern manitoba plus all the logistics for said equipment and health care assistance.

Do you not think that part of Steven's reason for going into politics was to be able to do something about his predicament. Much in the same way Chuck Cadman got into politics in order to do something about his son's murder. They both want to effect change in our society, a change for the better.

Is not politics all about using one's influence in order to bring about true change and progress for our nation? If that makes you lose respect for the man then you must lose respect for all politicians and people who want better.

then he should use his political influence.. not keep costing me more money by launching lawsuits.

He was into politics from the get go President of the Conservative Party of Manitoba I believe , And he gets what you and I get so where is the problem . As I said not that it can't be improved just it hasn't . He is a very clever man but it is time to change The act of MPI and he is in the wrong place for that . Have you noticed that the hydraulic chair he was after you and I bought for him . This is from a ex aide of his might be true might not, funny how he did not have before Ottawa.

The notion he gets what you and I might get is one thing (and correct). The problem is the compensation for such devastating injuries is woefully inadequate.

It matters not that he is Joe the Plumber, an MP or the King of England he is absolutely right in fighting MPI to get things changed.

I don't see the conspiracy nor favouritism here.

I agree. $3K a month for 24/7 care is beyond stupid...it's a joke.

grumpy old man wrote:The notion he gets what you and I might get is one thing (and correct). The problem is the compensation for such devastating injuries is woefully inadequate.

It matters not that he is Joe the Plumber, an MP or the King of England he is absolutely right in fighting MPI to get things changed.

I don't see the conspiracy not favouritism here.

But lots of people do because he is a Conservative and has dealings with Harper...the Antichrist... If this was say Pat Martin then the laws would be changed and he would be regarded as a hero for the disabled.

I don't know this guy...or what happened, but from what I understand a guy was in a collision of some kind, and now he's in a wheelchair.

My understanding is, he's trying to get the insurance company to provide for him, and they are nickel-&-diming.

Having seen this in the US quite often...it would seem he's looking for "pain & suffering" damages, which are not awarded in Canada. And that's a good thing.

If he wins his case, then new cases will crop up...like the famous McDonald's old lady and her hot coffee, (who in the end got nothing...but the case is famous).

I agree that a "quality of life" should be provided where possible. But there has to be limits as to what he can sue for. If the guy was out playing in a local football league and took a bad tumble and broke his back. He'd be in the same position...without ANY insurance to cover it...so at least he's getting something.

He's also a sitting (no pun intended) politician. That's a job...with money coming in. How can he claim "loss of wages". It would be different if he was a basic vegetable. But he's not...he can speak, move, think.

Yes, it's horrible what's happened, and I'm sure there's days where he questions life itself...but we all do...and we all have setbacks in our lives...and most of us don't go suing because we don't like what life has given us.

Deank wrote:then he should use his political influence.. not keep costing me more money by launching lawsuits.

Is he not entitled to fight for what he believes is owed to him?

Would you not fight for what you thought was right fair and just? Would you deny this to your own children because it would cost money to keep launching lawsuits?

Is the accusation that he's being discriminated against based on the fact that he's a Conservative, or that he's an MP who earns way more than the average quadriplegic? Is the issue that the benefits are being clawed back because of his earnings, or that the benefit is not enough and the maximum needs to be raised?

AGEsAces wrote:I don't know this guy...or what happened, but from what I understand a guy was in a collision of some kind, and now he's in a wheelchair.

He hit a moose while driving.

My understanding is, he's trying to get the insurance company to provide for him, and they are nickel-&-diming.

Yup. MPIC is the insurer. They are notorius bastards imo.

Having seen this in the US quite often...it would seem he's looking for "pain & suffering" damages, which are not awarded in Canada. And that's a good thing.

Nope. He's only given $3,000 a month for 24/7 care which he says is inadequate. That is what he's fighting.

If he wins his case, then new cases will crop up...like the famous McDonald's old lady and her hot coffee, (who in the end got nothing...but the case is famous).

Of course this will affect others, but has nothing to do with silly law suits.

I agree that a "quality of life" should be provided where possible. But there has to be limits as to what he can sue for. If the guy was out playing in a local football league and took a bad tumble and broke his back. He'd be in the same position...without ANY insurance to cover it...so at least he's getting something.

We are obliged to deal only with MPIC in this type of situation. He couldn't buy better insurance coverage, as would be the case for a sports injury or other such insurable coverage.

He's also a sitting (no pun intended) politician. That's a job...with money coming in. How can he claim "loss of wages". It would be different if he was a basic vegetable. But he's not...he can speak, move, think.

Yes, it's horrible what's happened, and I'm sure there's days where he questions life itself...but we all do...and we all have setbacks in our lives...and most of us don't go suing because we don't like what life has given us.

I don't think you really understand what this is all about.
He says the amout they allow for care is wrong. I agree.

However, perhaps you can show how he could get 24/7 care for $3 grand.

FlyingRat wrote: or that the benefit is not enough and the maximum needs to be raised?

At least that is the way I understand it.
His lawyer has said that MPIC doesn't like it when paras get out into the world....he may be able to get by if stuck in some institution and made to just look out the window for the rest of his life.

I think there are several issues at hand.

• Salary replacement is one. I don't have a problem with the claw back.
  
• Freedom of mobility is another. It seems that should he leave the province his coverage is discontinued.
  
• Cost of care is yet another. Apparently that is $3000/month for 24/7 care. That seems too low.
  
• If pain and suffering is one of his issues then I agree it should not be compensated.
  

I don't agree with claw-backs.... why provide a disincentive to work?

The Freep has a poll on this question today:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/polls/Would_you_support_MPI_paying_more_to_help_Steven_Fletcher.html

It is also not a reward system where one get's to double dip...

How would that be double dipping? You get a benefit which covers some costs of your accident. Your employment income is based on the work performed, not your needs.